Is God essentially Creator?

[Noxot]

Forgive me if I misunderstand something, I'm just trying to reason this out and trying to understand.

Is God compelled by God? Is God defined by God? It seems so. He is his own master. Therefore Jesus always did his father's will.

God cannot necessarily be a Creator if God is the highest. There is no one to judge God as to what is what of himself. God judges himself and this is what he has said - he is one. Creatures are born of his will and they are as much a part of God as his will is part of him. I said that because I think humans have reasoned in the past certain ways about God which attempt to separate what God himself has put together - the creature and creator. past Christians were very concerned about showing how different creatures are from the Creator because they were not fully reconciled to God but also because it takes forever to express every single thing about reality.

Separation from God is a common theme with us Christians. We are sinners and Only God is good. We know God in a sense where we are separated from God and therefore often does our theology speak about our separation from God. That philosophical term "accident" is a guilty perception and attitude, a attempt to separate themselves from God (even an attempt to separate God from God!) due to their feelings of alienation. The sorrowful soul of mankind must needs create and develop philosophical terms such as accident since they themselves feel an empty Gap in themselves and in their experience of reality... but a god-shaped hole is already God revealing himself to us.

God compelled himself to make us. "Necessarily" then becomes a meaningless word, because it's the same thing as Gods willing. Is God's will separated from God's will? Of course not. There is no separation in God. in fact separation is part of the nature of the trinity. That's why there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So you see, separation to God is in unity. Separation serves God because it is God. another word for separation we might use is Transcendence. There is no difference between separation and love because God is one. Creator and creature is a separation and unity because God is one. By Gods might there is God and there is creature. God is self-existent and creatures are self-existent by God. the Trinity proves that there is relationship in God, and that's why there is relationship in Creator and creature.

how can anything be accidental if all is Created from the will and power of God? Is God's Will and power accidental too? You are confusing our own freedom and what we make of that with that which is not fundamental to God. What is not fundamental to God does not exist. what justification do you have to try to draw a dividing line between me and God? we act blindly and stupidly and weakly and then we go on in our blindness and say "we are not God's child". But we are born from his will and love, we are his child. we being weak and overwhelmed does not change God's nature or act. What we do does not fundamentally alter God because God Wills us. Therefore I am the weakness and blindness and stupidity of God, I am Gods overwhelmed nature. I am Gods sin and that is why he had to atone. He came to save us because he is us.

Do people believe that God is completely free to be? A term like "Essence" is just part of a tradition of Theology and philosophy, it forces us to think of God in a certain way. God's Essence is divinity. God's Essence is God. God's Essence is his own freedom. God's Essence is his will his love his understanding. God is not separated from himself. God is Lord of himself and God is creator of himself.

We are by-products of God's existence but there is no existence apart from God. What was there before there was God? The answer of course is that there was God. What was there before there were creatures? The answer of course is that there was God. so what's the fundamental essence of a creature? It is God's Will and love. Are God's Will and love accidental? if I am a byproduct of the only thing that is then I have found the core and Foundation of my nature. I cannot be a byproduct If Only God exists. Therefore creatures are a thing God does. Since God does these things, they are an essential part of his nature. for me to say that I exist is the same thing as to say that God exists, because I have an existence from God. I cannot undo myself because I cannot undo God.

Maybe it is wrong of theologians to speak about what is not when God is what is. There is no "what is not". Creatures exist, that is what is real. Why do humans try to take away creatures from reality when the natural state of reality is that God exists and that there are creatures?

 

[sparow]

I can see why you say this, but Duns Scotus is actually saying the opposite. He is saying creation is not a necessary element of God. In fact, he is saying that creation is not necessary at all. God created freely and not under any necessity.

The bit you quoted in post #1 is out of the context of the whole thesis, and someone else correctly described it as goblygook. My reply was based on the words "essential and essence" and the way I read it he is saying creation would have happened without God.

Seeing Duns Scotus was a Catholic priest; and Catholic Priests have given us much, like futurism and Preterism; of course this is not a discussion about the RCC, but it could explain Duns Scotus' disbelief in scripture.

<<God created freely and not under any necessity >> My faith tells me that this is a false statement; God may be free but he always has an objective/s and creation is how He went about reaching those objectives; God may have had a choice to discard the objectives, and do nothing.

I have reached the conclusion that the war in Heaven preceded creation, and that war is what necessitated creation.

God had three or four objective the first being to recreate the kingdom of God which was destroyed in the war; then there is the judgement of those fallen angels, and this results in two things; salvation, redemption or reprieve from the second death; and creation was necessary for the second death, which terminates the eternal component of angels.

 

[Saint Steven]

General comment not directed to any individual.
Humankind has struggled with the "Why?" question for as long as there has been an ear to hear it, or something to write it on.

I did a quick Bible search on the phrase "for this very reason". This answer came from a very unexpected place.

Romans 14:8-9
If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

 

[sparow]

General comment not directed to any individual.
Humankind has struggled with the "Why?" question for as long as there has been an ear to hear it, our something to write it on.

I did a quick Bible search on the phrase "for this very reason". This answer came from from a very unexpected place.

Romans 14:8-9
If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

There is an assumption in what Paul is saying; that is the people Paul is speaking to are among the saved about the first death; had Paul been speaking to the assumed lost he would not have said, we do not die for the Lord because our second death is not voluntarily, as we surround the New Jerusalem and fight against God to the vey end.

 

[public hermit]

I have reached the conclusion that the war in Heaven preceded creation, and that war is what necessitated creation.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you hold that angels are creatures? As created beings they also would be part of creation. I suppose there could have been the creation of angels, then the angelic war, and then the rest of creation. Even if that were the case, it would just push the question back one step. What was God's objective in creating angels?

 

[Saint Steven]

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you hold that angels are creatures? As created beings they also would be part of creation. I suppose there could have been the creation of angels, then the angelic war, and then the rest of creation. Even if that were the case, it would just push the question back one step. What was God's objective in creating angels?

I wonder if from a heavenly perspective everything has already happened. (no time/space limitation) We just haven't caught up yet. Therefore, from OUR perspective the war in heaven is still happening. (never stopped) The spiritual warfare we deal with today. And written about in the time of Daniel. (2 week delay in our time)

 

[public hermit]

wonder if from a heavenly perspective everything has already happened. (no time/space limitation) We just haven't caught up yet

I definitely have some sympathy with this perspective. I seriously doubt heaven is tracking time right along with us, time being relative and all.

 

[Saint Steven]

I definitely have some sympathy with this perspective. I seriously doubt heaven is tracking time right along with us, time being relative and all.

I was thinking it might be like a marathon foot race. The winner has already crossed the finish line. They are just waiting for the last runners to cross the line before calling it finished.

 

[bling]

Too anthropomorphic. Does God have a bottom upon which to sit? Is God 6'3"? Shorter or taller?



Must God's power or authority be conferred on God? This goes back to creation ex nihilo and God's sovereign freedom. Did God have to create?



I see no reason why authority, which is simply power, needs to be creation dependent.



I suppose, but I'm not sure how it relates.

I have not read all the posts, but definitely disagree with some.

You brought up the point questioning if God is always creating, but that places God in time. There might be a sequencing of events in heaven, but do not know how it works.

To the main question:

God’s Love would compel God to make humans, because God can make humans, so for the sake of those humans who will become like God Himself, in that they will have Godly type Love, He made humans. For the sake of those who will humbly accept His charity (Love) as charity, God will do or allow all kinds of Loving sacrificial actions including: Christ going to the cross, the allowing of satan to roam the earth, man to sin, hardship tragedies on man, the creation of hell, and man to die.

God is not really “getting” anything from man and by all logical reasoning should not go through all this hardship in creating humans, but Godly type Love goes beyond logic and has nothing to do with the many tragedies the creation of humans will result in, far outweighing any possible benefit. Love is who God is, so He creates humans for the possibility of some accepting unbelievable charitable wonderful gifts.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you hold that angels are creatures? As created beings they also would be part of creation. I suppose there could have been the creation of angels, then the angelic war, and then the rest of creation. Even if that were the case, it would just push the question back one step. What was God's objective in creating angels?

Angels were created as per Colossians 1:16-17 below who are the created angels , the principalities and powers with rank and order below.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Ephesians 1:20-21
which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[Saint Steven]

God’s Love would compel God to make humans, because God can make humans, so for the sake of those humans who will become like God Himself, in that they will have Godly type Love, He made humans. For the sake of those who will humbly accept His charity (Love) as charity, God will do or allow all kinds of Loving sacrificial actions including: Christ going to the cross, the allowing of satan to roam the earth, man to sin, hardship tragedies on man, the creation of hell, and man to die.

How is "the creation of hell" an act of love?
If "hell" is eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape, it is not love by any stretch.
And don't tell me that those who end up in hell chose it willingly. Countless billions have gone to the grave with no knowledge of Christ. (or hell)

 

[bling]

How is "the creation of hell" an act of love?
If "hell" is eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape, it is not love by any stretch.
And don't tell me that those who end up in hell chose it willingly. Countless billions have gone to the grave with no knowledge of Christ. (or hell)

It is truly unfortunate, but there are two very important reasons for hell, The way I determine the significance of an offence is by the severity of the punishment, so if I am to believe God has forgiven me of an unbelievable huge debt created by my sins, so I can have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) since Jesus taught us "... he that is forgiven much Loves much..." then I need to know hell is the punishment. I also needed to know while coming to believe, I need to act quickly, because hell was still a possibility for me.
The choice is never between heaven and hell, since that would be no choice at all (a gun would be to your head).
Hell if my fault, since I need it to be.
Hell is really bad, but I do not know if and when it might end in annihilation.

 

[Saint Steven]

It is truly unfortunate, but there are two very important reasons for hell, The way I determine the significance of an offence is by the severity of the punishment, so if I am to believe God has forgiven me of an unbelievable huge debt created by my sins, so I can have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) since Jesus taught us "... he that is forgiven much Loves much..." then I need to know hell is the punishment. I also needed to know while coming to believe, I need to act quickly, because hell was still a possibility for me.
The choice is never between heaven and hell, since that would be no choice at all (a gun would be to your head).
Hell if my fault, since I need it to be.
Hell is really bad, but I do not know if and when it might end in annihilation.

An often overlooked option for justice is mercy.
We seem to understand this when it applies to us, but not when it applies to the disobedient.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[sparow]

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you hold that angels are creatures? As created beings they also would be part of creation. I suppose there could have been the creation of angels, then the angelic war, and then the rest of creation. Even if that were the case, it would just push the question back one step. What was God's objective in creating angels?

God is undefined, as are angels; creation as a process is also undefined; that God created angels can only be some kind of assumption until there is a definition for God, the angels and the creation process. We can learn from our environment through our senses and from the Bible; to the best of my knowledge, the Bible does not tell us that God created angels; this is assumed from the verse that says God created all that was created.

For me the creation story is too abstract to be rational; but the human mind requires things to have a beginning and an end, and for me the creation story is a parable of abstractions; it provides us with a beginning and a type for the next seven thousand years, which is also a creation which we witness.

The Bible tells us Elohim created the world; Elohim is a common plural word the equivalent of gods; John tells us that in the beginning was the word (spokesperson) and the word was with God (Elohim); for God to need a spokes person the must have been someone to speak to, like an angelic host (Elohim).

 

[public hermit]

John tells us that in the beginning was the word (spokesperson) and the word was with God (Elohim); for God to need a spokes person the must have been someone to speak to, like an angelic host (Elohim).

John also tells us that this Word that God spoke in the beginning is the One through whom all things came into being and without this Word not one thing came into being, John 1:1-3. Angels are beings that came into being, i.e. they are creatures.

I have some sympathy with the notion that the creation account is abstract and in some sense says more than it says. But, the scriptures are not so abstract that we can't find any defining concepts of God as has been revealed and who creatures are in relation to their Creator. Yes, there is plenty of room for speculation, but it's not a blank slate.

The scriptures give us a clear indication of a beginning and an end. The scriptures are framed by two gardens. Everything in-between marks a beginning and an end to the enmity between God and humanity. We were created to be with God, and when it is all said and done we will be. In that, God cannot fail.

At any rate, the question at hand concerns whether or not God is essentially Creator. As odd as the thought that God is not essentially Creator seemed to me when I started this thread, I am convinced that Duns Scotus and others who have held that position are correct.

 

[Noxot]

Some saint has said that angels are emanations from God which doesn't seem to be the same as creation. Perhaps the further one goes to God the more real they become and so at some point it would be weird to mention creatures.

 

[public hermit]

Frederick Copleston writes, "...the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, whereas the relation of God to the creature is a mental relation only (relation rationis), since God is not essentially Creator and cannot be called Creator in the same sense in which he is called wise or good. He is really Creator, but His relationship to the creature is not a real relation, since He is not Creator by essence, in which case he would create necessarily..." A History of Philosophy Volume 2: Mediaeval Philosophy Part II.48.11

I've moved on from Duns Scotus to William of Ockham in Copleston's history and came across a fascinating instance of his proverbial "razor."

Ockham jettisons the whole notion of relations as real entities, which was the implication of the doctrine of relations in the Middle Ages. For Ockham, the only existences are entities, which in turn are wholly distinct from one another. Relations are mere mental constructs. Consider the relation "paternity." If paternity were a real entity distinct form the terms of the relation, God could (logically possible) confer paternity on one who had never generated. So, no real relations. Likewise for Ockham, God is radically free. The order of creation is not something distinct from the entities that populate creation. Creation is wholly contingent and not deducible a prior.

So, Ockham has a very different take of the issue presented in the OP. Copleston on Ockham, "It was a common doctrine in the Middle Ages among Ockham's predecessors that the creature has a real relation to God, although God's relation to the creature is only a mental relation. On Ockham's view of relations, however, this distinction becomes in effect null and void. Relations can be analyzed into two 'absolutes'; and in this case to say that between creatures and God there are different kinds of relations is simply to say, so far as this way of speaking is admissible, that God and creatures are different kinds of beings. It is perfectly true that God produced and conserves creatures and that the latter could not exist apart from God; but this does not mean that the creatures are affected by a mysterious entity called essential relations of dependence (emphasis mine). We conceive and speak about creatures as essentially related to God; but what actually exists is God on the one hand and creatures on the other, and there is no need to postulate another entity." Copleston volume 3, part I.5.4

So, Ockham uses his razor and eliminates relations as entities. This is significant, because he undercuts the whole deductive project of the Middle Ages. If there are no real relations, if everything is wholly contingent, then the great a-priori systems of his predecessors are wrong-headed and the only way to know about the world is empirically.

Again Copleston, "For Ockham, then, the universe consist of 'absolutes', substances and absolute accidents, which can be brought into greater or lesser local approximation to one another, but which are not affected by any relative entities called 'real relations'. From this it would follow that it is futile to think that one could read off, as it were, a mirror of the whole universe. If one wants to know anything about the universe, one must study it empirically." (ibid.)

That was a significant shift in thought, at that time, and no doubt has reverberated through the centuries.

 

[public hermit]

I've moved on from Duns Scotus to William of Ockham in Copleston's history and came across a fascinating instance of his proverbial "razor."

Ockham jettisons the whole notion of relations as real entities, which was the implication of the doctrine of relations in the Middle Ages. For Ockham, the only existences are entities, which in turn are wholly distinct from one another. Relations are mere mental constructs. Consider the relation "paternity." If paternity were a real entity distinct form the terms of the relation, God could (logically possible) confer paternity on one who had never generated. So, no real relations. Likewise for Ockham, God is radically free. The order of creation is not something distinct from the entities that populate creation. Creation is wholly contingent and not deducible a prior.

So, Ockham has a very different take of the issue presented in the OP. Copleston on Ockham, "It was a common doctrine in the Middle Ages among Ockham's predecessors that the creature has a real relation to God, although God's relation to the creature is only a mental relation. On Ockham's view of relations, however, this distinction becomes in effect null and void. Relations can be analyzed into two 'absolutes'; and in this case to say that between creatures and God there are different kinds of relations is simply to say, so far as this way of speaking is admissible, that God and creatures are different kinds of beings. It is perfectly true that God produced and conserves creatures and that the latter could not exist apart from God; but this does not mean that the creatures are affected by a mysterious entity called essential relations of dependence (emphasis mine). We conceive and speak about creatures as essentially related to God; but what actually exists is God on the one hand and creatures on the other, and there is no need to postulate another entity." Copleston volume 3, part I.5.4

So, Ockham uses his razor and eliminates relations as entities. This is significant, because he undercuts the whole deductive project of the Middle Ages. If there are no real relations, if everything is wholly contingent, then the great a-priori systems of his predecessors are wrong-headed and the only way to know about the world is empirically.

Again Copleston, "For Ockham, then, the universe consist of 'absolutes', substances and absolute accidents, which can be brought into greater or lesser local approximation to one another, but which are not affected by any relative entities called 'real relations'. From this it would follow that it is futile to think that one could read off, as it were, a mirror of the whole universe. If one wants to know anything about the universe, one must study it empirically." (ibid.)

That was a significant shift in thought, at that time, and no doubt has reverberated through the centuries.

The idea that God is radically free and that there are no real relations has further implications, I think (I don't know that Ockham would agree with what follows, so...)

God is radically free in the sense that God did not have to use a particular kind of order in creating. Creatures are distinct entities. According to Ockham, I cannot infer, a priori, the cause of an effect. I can infer that an entity has a cause, but there is no "real relation" by which I can deductively know anything about the cause itself. The only way I can know the cause is by observation.

This goes back to God's freedom. God was not necessitated in such a way that God could only create the present order. The present "order" is simply a collection of relations that have no real entity. So, if that's the case, notions such as "kind" go out the window. At least, there is no essence that necessitates one kind generated the same kind. There are only contingent collections of entities. God very well could have created such an order that ducks gave birth to chickens, who in turn gave birth to elephants. And, if God had done that, it would be the present order and would make perfect sense.

I think it appears obvious that God could have created a world that had a different order (different physics?), but when you try to think of specifics it gets wonky. But, for Ockham, that oddness is simply the result of this being the only contingent world we know by experience.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've moved on from Duns Scotus to William of Ockham in Copleston's history and came across a fascinating instance of his proverbial "razor."

That was a significant shift in thought, at that time, and no doubt has reverberated through the centuries.

Yes indeed. Empiricism is born of Ockham, for better or worse. He simplifies, and appears to solve philosophical problems but creates new ones that go a long way to blowing away the whole edifice of philosophy. You can hear Luther ripping philosophy as a simple outgrowth of this.

Poor Luther was philosophically trained as an Ockhamist, with the Ockhamist toolbox, hardly knowing any philosophy but Ockhamism, and basically only knowing the Ockhamist talking points against Thomas.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The idea that God is radically free and that there are no real relations has further implications, I think (I don't know that Ockham would agree with what follows, so...)

God is radically free in the sense that God did not have to use a particular kind of order in creating. Creatures are distinct entities. According to Ockham, I cannot infer, a priori, the cause of an effect. I can infer that an entity has a cause, but there is no "real relation" by which I can deductively know anything about the cause itself. The only way I can know the cause is by observation.

This goes back to God's freedom. God was not necessitated in such a way that God could only create the present order. The present "order" is simply a collection of relations that have no real entity. So, if that's the case, notions such as "kind" go out the window. At least, there is no essence that necessitates one kind generated the same kind. There are only contingent collections of entities. God very well could have created such an order that ducks gave birth to chickens, who in turn gave birth to elephants. And, if God had done that, it would be the present order and would make perfect sense.

I think it appears obvious that God could have created a world that had a different order (different physics?), but when you try to think of specifics it gets wonky. But, for Ockham, that oddness is simply the result of this being the only contingent world we know by experience.

There was inherent in the Medieval study of Aristotle an Islamic influence. It was through the Islamic scholars that Aristotle was brought to Europe through the project of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. And that Islamic influence brought the idea that God was radically free, even free of reason. God can do whatever contradictory things God wants to do. Everything is contingent. Everything could have been different. Everything might be different just this afternoon. We can't say. We just need to wait and experience it.

That kind of thinking leads to Ockhamism and also by maybe similar paths to Calvinism, where God 's will is the only sovereign. While it is healthy to Give God his due, I like to think we were created in the image and likeness of a relational God who will actually stick to His own plans due to relationships He has created. Much is contingent, but much can be depended on because God is inherently dependable. This afternoon will have a similarity to this morning.

Anyhow, Thomism lasted only a short while beyond the lifetime of Thomas outside of a few Dominicans. Then the Jesuits picked it up and only much later did it become the perennial philosophy recommended to Catholic seminarians. The neo-Thomists, of whom Copleston would probably consider himself, came later. Folks like Maritain and Gilson and McInerney made Thomism popular again for a while. What Luther experienced was a much lesser thing, mostly an Ockhamist thing, and he didn't have much other philosophy to use. It explains a lot.